Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It never says whether the tool reads or writes anything, what side effects or permissions are involved, or what the response contains beyond a vague claim that a "complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all promotional, none front-loading the actual operation. The space is spent on benefit claims ("in minutes", "professional results") instead of the verb, resource, and return shape an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one weakly documented parameter, the description must explain the mechanics and output, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what calling this tool actually produces or how it differs from the surrounding weekly-* family.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description is present (100% coverage), so the schema already explains that "query" optionally scopes the analysis. The prose adds nothing about how a query influences the weekly check output; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is marketing copy ("Turn expertise into output", "produce professional results in minutes") rather than a statement of what the tool does. "Weekly check tool prompt pack" merely restates the name, and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling weekly-* tools such as weekly-audit-tool, weekly-gen-tool, or weekly-write-tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only scoping hint is an audience ("restaurant and brand teams"); there is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a weekly check versus a weekly report, audit, or template. An agent would have to guess between dozens of near-identical weekly-* names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.